Literature DB >> 25904420

How much does the Dallas Pain Questionnaire score have to improve to indicate that patients with chronic low back pain feel better or well?

M Marty1, D Courvoisier2, V Foltz3, G Mahieu4, C Demoulin5, A Gierasimowicz6, M Norberg7, P de Goumoëns7, C Cedraschi8, S Rozenberg3, S Genevay9.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ) assesses the impact of low back pain (LBP) on four components (0-100) of daily life. We estimated the minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) values of DPQ in LBP patients.
METHODS: 142 patients with LBP lasting for at least 4 weeks completed a battery of questionnaires at baseline and 6 months later. Questions for MCII addressed patient-reported response to treatment at 6 months on a five-point Likert scale, while a yes/no question concerning satisfaction with present state was used to determine PASS. MCII was computed as the difference in mean DPQ scores between patients reporting treatment as effective vs. patients reporting treatment as not effective, and PASS was computed as the third quartile of the DPQ score among patients who reported being satisfied with their present state.
RESULTS: MCII values were 22, 23, 2 and 10 for daily activities, work and leisure, social interest, and anxiety/depression, respectively. PASS values were 29, 23, 20 and 21 for the four components, respectively. The PASS total score threshold of 24 correctly classified 84.1 % of the patients who reported being unsatisfied with their present state, and 74.7 % of patients reported being satisfied.
CONCLUSIONS: These values give information of paramount importance for clinicians in interpreting change in DPQ values over time. Authors should be encouraged to report the percentage of patients who reach MCII and PASS values in randomized clinical trials and cohort studies to help clinicians to interpret clinical results.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dallas Pain Questionnaire; Low back pain; Minimal clinically important change; Outcome measures; Patient acceptable stable state

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25904420     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-3957-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  18 in total

Review 1.  Minimal clinically important difference, low disease activity state, and patient acceptable symptom state: methodological issues.

Authors:  Florence Tubach; George A Wells; Philippe Ravaud; Maxime Dougados
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.666

2.  Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires.

Authors:  Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2006-08-24       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Validity of the French version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain patients: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Stéphane Genevay; Marc Marty; Delphine S Courvoisier; Violaine Foltz; Geneviève Mahieu; Christophe Demoulin; Agnieszka Gierasimowicz Fontana; Michael Norberg; Pierre de Goumoëns; Christine Cedraschi; Sylvie Rozenberg
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Minimal clinically important difference. Low back pain: outcome measures.

Authors:  C Bombardier; J Hayden; D E Beaton
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.666

5.  Outcome measures in chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Elaine F Maughan; Jeremy S Lewis
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-04-17       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Validation of the French version of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire in chronic low back pain patients.

Authors:  M Marty; F Blotman; B Avouac; S Rozenberg; J P Valat
Journal:  Rev Rhum Engl Ed       Date:  1998-02

7.  General population reference values for the French version of the EuroQol EQ-5D health utility instrument.

Authors:  Thomas V Perneger; Christophe Combescure; Delphine S Courvoisier
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2010-04-15       Impact factor: 5.725

8.  Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments.

Authors:  A J H M Beurskens; H C W de Vet; A J A Köke
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 6.961

9.  [French validation of a disability rating scale for the evaluation of low back pain (EIFEL questionnaire)].

Authors:  J Coste; J M Le Parc; E Berge; G Delecoeuillerie; J B Paolaggi
Journal:  Rev Rhum Ed Fr       Date:  1993-05

10.  The development of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. An assessment of the impact of spinal pain on behavior.

Authors:  G F Lawlis; R Cuencas; D Selby; C E McCoy
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  1 in total

1.  A Randomized Clinical Trial on the Effect of Biofeedback on Pain and Quality of Life of Patients With Chronic Coccydynia.

Authors:  Tannaz Ahadi; Gholam Reza Raissi; Maryam Hosseini; Simin Sajadi; Safoora Ebadi; Korosh Mansoori
Journal:  Basic Clin Neurosci       Date:  2020-11-01
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.